Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
1 2 3 4 ... 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 ... 84 85 86 87
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Second that.

There are enough weirdos raving about the evils of this or that on various sites, without inviting non-bridge discussions on this site. There may be a faster way of poisoning BridgeWinners, but I can't think what it is.

Anyone who wants a vigorous discussion on a non-bridge topic can go here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/
March 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One does not need a simulation.

From: http://www.bridgehands.com/P/Probability_HCP.htm we see:

15: 4.42%
16: 3.31%
17: 2.36%
—-
10.09

Giving relative percentages:
15: 43.8
16: 32.8
17: 23.4
—-
100.0
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A read of Bridge Odds For Practical Players, Kelsey & Glauert, will clarify the right line on hands like this.

Rubens' Expert Bridge Simplified is also good.
March 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect the US BW members will not have a great deal contribute as regards “general experience” of 2 (W2M)

Pity.
March 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hate to be obtuse, but could you supply a typical hand where it's better to be in 6 than 6?

I've already given my deal, where I want to be in 6S.

AQxxx KQ10x x xxx

K854 A985 A976 7

Yes, a 4-4 fit is often the better slam, but not here, where there is no useful discard on the long spade.

March 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ending is also known as a Seres Squeeze…
March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good problem. I like pass and low spade, going for 200+. The chance of this costing a trick is remote.
March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find myself a dissenter regarding some of the comments so far.

- People bidding 4 had better be prepared to play there, with no gain over 4 that I can see.

- People bidding 4 will miss a good slam sometimes, and looking is cost-free.

- “I don't have a source of tricks” is misleading; we have fillers in partner's second suit, a fourth spade and we will provide one or more club ruffs. With the fitting heart honours, this hand is anything but minimum.

- While it is true a 4441 generally plays badly, in this case we may be opposite a 5-4-1-3, which will play super-well.

Game is excellent opposite:
Axxxx KJxx x xxx so we have enough to bid game with confidence.

We need to make some sort of extra move in case partner has more, such as:
AQxxx KQ10x x xxx where slam is very good.

March 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AQxxx KQ10x x xxx

Culbertson's Law: It is correct to try for slam when a perfect minimum makes it laydown.

The example makes for an excellent slam so I have to do what I can to get us there. O for the courage to essay 5 (splinter)!
March 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, next time E-W bid a quick 4 and make 5…
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about Aspro and its variants? Plenty of pairs still like it.
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for taking the time to answer people's queries.

Do you have an opinion about the conclusions reached by Bird and Anthias regarding opening leads, from their work with simulations?
Feb. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From memory, Jeff Ruben's The Bet has a hand where declarer in 1NT must, and does, duck with AKQJx in hand.
Feb. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely Dean is allowed to admit that he is not proud of the things he has done…
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kaplan wrote at length on the topics of an action being followed by “consequent” as compared to “subsequent” events
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly the “jump sets trumps and asks for aces” was part of 30s Acol.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner has 5-6 spades, around an 11 count and passed over 1??
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kaplan wrote in a late 70s Bridge World that there is NEVER a case for kicking on after Hesitation Blackwood.

North's statement, “…his BIT obviously didn’t suggest 6H and South just took a flyer” is outrageous self-serving rubbish.

Both South and North have the ethics of a tapeworm.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree partner is odds-on to have KQ10x(x). We should encourage with the 3 so partner continues.

From KQ8xx I much prefer low against 1NT; better on many layouts.
Feb. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think an improvement is to have:
4/ transfer
4/ to play

There are some hands where responder wishes to conceal his assets, and others where he wants to take a fast route.

K10xx Jxxxxxx A10
I want to declare 4.

Anyone who bids 4 (transfer) with this is asking for trouble:
xxxxxxx K10x K10x

Feb. 23, 2014
1 2 3 4 ... 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 ... 84 85 86 87
.

Bottom Home Top